Aigh, so its here the lockout! it is wat it is. But i wanna know whose side are you on and why.
I kinda see the stance the players are taking in that they want the owners to workout their differences out first before asking the players to negotiate and compromise on different terms. And to me it makes sense cuz if the players are willing to taking a united stand for what they want, the owners should as well. But the owners are still divided between the big market vs the small market franchises. Between revenue sharing and individual profiting. Etc.

Here are the people involved:

Owners:
-Want shorter contracts
-Want non-guaranteed contracts
-Want some sort of franchise tag
-Want to curb the exorbant contracts, the one nd done players who play their ass off during a contract season and then are jus duds

Players:
-Want just as much as before, if not more, of the profits.
-Dont want to give into the demands of the owners

Fans: JUST WANT TO SEE CATS BALL!
- We're even willing to pay to watch these greedy bastards play with a round ball (......No Homo)

Personally here is what i would like to see.
- A 3 yr max contract (and i have no problem with the current max $ amount. The lebrons and kobes deserve the so much more compared to the duhons and mike conleys cuz they pack arenas and sell merchandise fattening the owners' pockets.)
- Franchise tag on a player (Like NFL)
- Soft cap like it is now
- Mid-level exception like it is now

Jul 01, 2011, 13:12

TR1LL10N

I come down the middle on this. I think that for smaller markets to be viable they need to have the players make salary concessions. That said, I think the owners so far are asking for too much and believe they should compromise on the cap. The players should roll back some of their salaries and request some bonus incentives based on performance. I also think less of the money should be guaranteed for injured players. IDK, not an expert but thats my two cents.

Jul 01, 2011, 14:03

Clyde & The Pearl

Actually the owners should leave everything as is for 3-5 years and start a revenue sharing model similar to the NFL. Then come back to the table with realistic demands based on the numbers that they accumulate during that time span. Right now its every man for himself. If they are truly concerned about the financial health of the league this may be the best way to get actual results. JMHO...

Jul 01, 2011, 16:26

New New York

Well I am torn on this...I get what the players are saying, basically they feel that they are the substance that puts fans into seats so why would they take less money and sign contracts that can be voided at anytime?

Yet, the owners are own teams as a source of revenue, if your buisness is costing you money then naturally you have to modify your buisness.

To handle the contract beef I propose "fantom contracts"

Which will allow every team to have one contract every six years not count against their cap space (while still paying the player his salary of course)

The catch is that the contract has to be in it's 4th year and there has to be proof that this player's production has reduced since the deal was signed, this can be gauged by statistic performance, physical health or player conduct.

So something like this wouldve allowed us to have a player like Curry or Allan Houston to have been come off the books, while not denying them the money promised to them when they signed and given a team the freedom to make moves

What do yall think?

Jul 01, 2011, 17:08

tiger0330

Quote:

Originally Posted by New New York

Well I am torn on this...I get what the players are saying, basically they feel that they are the substance that puts fans into seats so why would they take less money and sign contracts that can be voided at anytime?

Yet, the owners are own teams as a source of revenue, if your buisness is costing you money then naturally you have to modify your buisness.

To handle the contract beef I propose "fantom contracts"

Which will allow every team to have one contract every six years not count against their cap space (while still paying the player his salary of course)

The catch is that the contract has to be in it's 4th year and there has to be proof that this player's production has reduced since the deal was signed, this can be gauged by statistic performance, physical health or player conduct.

So something like this wouldve allowed us to have a player like Curry or Allan Houston to have been come off the books, while not denying them the money promised to them when they signed and given a team the freedom to make moves

What do yall think?

Well that gives a team cap flexibilty and would provide relief if the big name star you signed has a career ending injury but thats not the heart of these negotiations.

These negotiations are about letting the owners make some money so they do that by getting a bigger share of the revenue pie or cutting their costs (players salaries). Putting in place competitive rules like you're talking about is a lower priority for the owners.

All I have been hearing is discouraging, both sides look like they're dug in so it's probably going to be a long lockout, just praying we don't lose a whole season. Seems to me if the owners are losing money like they say, then every game they don't play is not going to cost them and they probably can withstand a long lockout more than the players, so the owners should be able to get the concessions they want if they are patient.

Jul 01, 2011, 18:40

Oldtimer

Lock Out

It is difficult to choose a side when (a) as a fan you do not want to miss any part of a season and (b) you really do not have all the pertinent information.

What the players receive in compensation directly from their teams is a definite number that is not hidden -- its transparent and not confused or otherwise obscured by "generally accepted accounting principles." The average player salary is about $4.822M a year. They are the highest paid athletes in the world. It is difficult to get too upset that they might have to take a bit of a pay cut to save the full season. At the same time, they should get their fair share of the revenue their talents generate.

Team finances, however, are hardly clear. The current CBA splits "Basketball Related Income" ("BRI") with the players getting 57% and the teams 43%. But try to figure that one out. It takes over twenty pages of the CBA to define the BRI.

I have seen on several occasions that the players 57% of the current BRI is $2.17 billion. That would mean that the teams' 43% is about $1.64 billion or about $55,000,000 a team. But in Forbes' current NBA team valuations, it uses team revenues from five years ago and reports ranges from $181M for the Knicks to $73M for the Bobcats and those numbers are net of stadium revenues used for debt service. Certainly gross income has increased since five years ago and so it follows that BRI does not include all the revenue that a team can earn.

I also read recently that the Nets claim losses over the last two years of over $100M, but that all but something less than $10M were for deductions permitted under generally accepted accounting principles to write down Prokhorov's purchase price for the team.

By the way, the last cap under the now expired CBA was $58.5M. If you multiply that by 30 teams, the total is $1.755 billion. This is $415M less than the $2.17 billion players' BRI share. There is something strange about the relationship between the players' share of BRI and the salary cap.

In short, the teams' finances are hardly transparent.

We certainly need a league of teams and 30 is a healthy number. The more teams, the more players that can earn that average of almost $5M a year. But there are only a couple of markets like New York and LA that can plainly support a franchise. There has got to be some way to maintain the weaker markets withut involing Marxist principles.

Jul 01, 2011, 19:09

Oldtimer

Last post.

I tried to make some changes to my last post but got a message that I iwas doing something "invalid."

I wanted to add that I may have misunderstood the Forbes numbers. The "revenue" figure of $181M for the Knicks, for example, likely was not net of players' salaries. Indeed the Knicks reported "operating income" for that season some five years ago was only $25.2M and that was EBITDA (Earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization.)

Whatever income teams are making seem to be hidden somewhere within "generally accepted accounting principles" and I am not an accountant.

In any event, I hope they work it out soon, and when they do, I am sure I will not have a clue as to which side may have really won.

Jul 01, 2011, 20:09

nuckles2k2

Does anyone know what the revenue sharing model for the NBA is? Does it have one? Cause I think once that issue gets taken care of then everything else falls into place. We know right now it's a matter of "the rich getting richer" and you have teams blissfully going into luxury tax territory to win a ring, while you have good, solid teams like the Trailblazers who struggle to make a profit.

I know the model used in the NFL in regards to ticket sales is something like 40 cents of every dollar spent on tickets goes to revenue sharing and that money is divided up between teams.

How does the NBA take money from the Lakers and Knicks and kick it to the T'wolves and Grizzlies?

How contracts are structured and the salary cap will be secondary to smaller market teams pointing to large market teams and saying "they have the advantage of their media market....can we even this playing field please?" Of course large market teams are not gonna want to give up funds that would directly lead to better competition, but there's a compromise in there somewhere. Then after that they'll hammer out the cap situation and how this shared revenue will get used.

But this thing right now is rich owner vs poor owner vs players with the fans as an afterthought.

Jul 01, 2011, 20:37

smokes

Quote:

Originally Posted by TR1LL10N

I come down the middle on this. I think that for smaller markets to be viable they need to have the players make salary concessions. That said, I think the owners so far are asking for too much and believe they should compromise on the cap. The players should roll back some of their salaries and request some bonus incentives based on performance. I also think less of the money should be guaranteed for injured players. IDK, not an expert but thats my two cents.

The performance based bonuses work very well in football. Also having x% of salaries non-guaranteed in case the player is sitting out with an injury for a long time. That way teams wouldn't be so severely hamstrung by a serious injury.

Portland was the OKC of 2-3 years ago, with Oden Roy and Aldridge everyone thought they were going to be absolute beasts. But as we saw Oden and Roy got demolished by injury and they are a mediocre team.

Jul 07, 2011, 10:16

p0nder

Not sure what side I'll end up supporting, obviously as a Fan you hope that they can work it out so that we can watch the best players play ball next season, regardless of the outcome of these negotiations.

My understanding is that the NBA does not want to go the way of baseball, with big market teams being the only competitive teams. I think they are much more inclined to go the way of the NHL where there is a MINIMUM cap as well as a Upper Cap and a Maximum Cap, with exceptions being reasonable and not allowing unfair advantages. The recent renegotiation of the NHL revenue sharing and contract structure is what they are after, especially as many of the owners of basketball teams also own NHL teams. They realize that with a better structure they could be making lots of money but it will require a huge cut to player salaries.

The players are open to a pay cut and thus far have seemed pretty reasonable with their approach to the negotiations. The owners have had a very hard line the entire time and it's only getting worse. As we get into lost summer camp/league time and then into lost games the pressure will mount on both ends.

My main issue is that with a work stoppage there will end up being less coverage of basketball outside of basketball markets. This is a terrible time for this to happen as the NBA was seeing a boom in popularity at home and overseas and was poised to make some fantastic leaps over the next couple of years. I certainly hope they get it together so we can have a season.

Jul 07, 2011, 11:59

nuckles2k2

Quote:

Originally Posted by p0nder

Not sure what side I'll end up supporting, obviously as a Fan you hope that they can work it out so that we can watch the best players play ball next season, regardless of the outcome of these negotiations.

My understanding is that the NBA does not want to go the way of baseball, with big market teams being the only competitive teams. I think they are much more inclined to go the way of the NHL where there is a MINIMUM cap as well as a Upper Cap and a Maximum Cap, with exceptions being reasonable and not allowing unfair advantages. The recent renegotiation of the NHL revenue sharing and contract structure is what they are after, especially as many of the owners of basketball teams also own NHL teams. They realize that with a better structure they could be making lots of money but it will require a huge cut to player salaries.

The players are open to a pay cut and thus far have seemed pretty reasonable with their approach to the negotiations. The owners have had a very hard line the entire time and it's only getting worse. As we get into lost summer camp/league time and then into lost games the pressure will mount on both ends.

My main issue is that with a work stoppage there will end up being less coverage of basketball outside of basketball markets. This is a terrible time for this to happen as the NBA was seeing a boom in popularity at home and overseas and was poised to make some fantastic leaps over the next couple of years. I certainly hope they get it together so we can have a season.

That system sounds similar to what the NBA already has. There's the cap floor (minimum allowed payroll), the actual salary cap, and then luxury tax territory.

I know the NHL has guaranteed contracts, but there's certain age factors that play into what percentage of a contract a player gets if his deal is terminated, or something along those lines. That and the hard cap are the only differences between the current NBA system and their system as far as I know. What exceptions do they have and how do they regulate them to make sure it's fair and reasonable?
If a team makes more money due to TV contracts and their location, they will always be more comfortable going into the luxury tax or the maximum cap for the sake of winning. That's why a hard cap evens the playing field because everyone has the same exact payroll, yearly revenue doesn't translate into more talent on the roster.

And I think there's not too much pressure on the players until the threat of losing actual money. The vets with clout won't be worried until the threat of losing game checks in November is real, they couldn't care less about the summer league, and anyone who was owed any money based on the last CBA is still entitled to that money and will get it. The players don't really lose anything tangible until they start losing income, and their income doesn't start until November...the only people currently losing income are the guys who participate in the summer league for the couple hundred bucks they pay them.

Jul 21, 2011, 14:18

NYallDay

We have to agree that both players and owners are greedy. Im fine and agree with the owners that there should be shorter contracts and a some sort of franchise tag and even incentive based contracts (to some degree).

But if they want to scale back current contracts- not gonna happen

If they want a smaller number for the max contract value - not gonna happen

Their claim that small market teams cant survive and are losing money- find a way to generate revenue. Have your players go deliver cupcakes to season ticket holders on their offdays for all I care.

But one thing they cant argue is that the big cities keep swallowing up the big stars so they cant sell. As proven by the Heat, the NBA does better when the big stars are in the big markets. NY fans might not watch Charlotte but you know what, Charlotte fans are def watching the Knicks i can tell you that. So if there needs to be a revenue sharing model, or whatever, i dont care, but that has nothing to do with the players. So the basis for the lockout is somewhat shady! :2cents: